Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellant-wife and respondent-husband married in 2002, but the marriage broke down quickly after the Canada-based husband returned abroad without taking his wife with him. The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in 2003; after prolonged litigation (including an earlier trip to the Supreme Court over interim maintenance), the Family Court in 2015 granted her Rs.10,000/month only up to December 2010 and nothing thereafter, a decision the Delhi High Court partly modified to award Rs.9,000/month from December 2010 onward "until further orders." The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the quantum fixed was too low given the husband's qualifications and past earnings.
The Supreme Court held that both the Family Court and High Court had correctly found the husband liable to maintain his educated but unemployed wife, since an able-bodied, highly qualified person cannot escape his maintenance obligation merely by claiming unemployment without proof. However, it held the High Court's method, pegging maintenance to Delhi's "minimum wage" for an MBA-qualified individual, was unduly low. Considering the husband's actual past Canadian salary (over Rs.1,77,364/month in 2010), his conduct in protracting litigation for over a decade, and the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/month already found justified by the Court in 2014, the Court enhanced maintenance to Rs.20,000/month from January 2010, rising to Rs.25,000/month from June 2018 onward, and directed payment within eight weeks after adjusting past deposits.
Courts will not let an able-bodied, well-qualified spouse avoid maintenance obligations by a bare, unsubstantiated claim of unemployment; actual or provable earning capacity, not an artificial minimum-wage floor, governs the quantum of maintenance.
